Here we Go Again On The Teleological Argument

After tweeting a comment about the philosophical shortcomings of the act of praying, something I 'might' be wrong about, a Christian apologist offered to debate me in DMs. (And, for the record, I am tweeting and messaging as The Stranded Alien @TheStrendedAli2 because 1-More and more I don't believe I am from this planet and 2-Making comments from the perspective of an alien who seeks to understand humans keeps me civil.) What follow are the screen shots of our messages and additional thoughts as to what was going through my head as I was replying. 

Props to the Millennial Christian as he stays civil throughout this, or perhaps it is a ploy to gain  my trust and convert me. At any rate, once we pass the civility test, he comes across as your garden variety apologist who hasn't been in the game very long, as you can see in the very beginning when he refuses to define 'god.' I understand his reluctance, though. 

Rookie mistake; nature itself can't be evidence of things that are created when all we know about things that are created are the things created by humans.

His initial statement is silly. He's implying that having never been told about a god or creator, he has looked at the entire universe and thought, "One [entity] did this" which is a preposterous extrapolation. And no, knowing how we got here does not define our purpose, if any purpose besides reproduction can be said to exist. Animals don't posit the beginning of the universe to know they need to eat and take shelter to survive and reproduce. Second, why should I respect another person's life if I don't know about our origins? I can think of some good reasons. At least he concedes that his god could have been created (it's turtles all the way down) but goofs on the Fine Tuning Argument, not realizing that the second we find life on another planet, the Fine Tuning Argument goes out the window. Also, the earth is never in the same place.

(oops, goofed on the screen captures there...) The story of the Fall in Christian mythology is so ridiculous it boggles the minds. I might also add that nowhere in Genesis does it say Adam and Eve were 'perfect,' another word lacking description. I mean, I'm not surprised that another Christian apologist hasn't read the Bible they've allegedly analyzed, but c'mon. He started with the Teleological Argument, was shown it was faulty - thank you, David Hume - and then had to resort to scripture which no one worth their salt does. After this, the Millennial Christian no longer engaged, perhaps to practice his conversion techniques some more. Kid's got a long way to go. 

What If We're Wrong?

[Author’s note: Not to be confused with the Chuck Klosterman book of the same name, but does share the basic premise, that is, what if we’re wrong about many of our commonly held beliefs? I take a more practical approach to the question, whereas much of Klosterman’s commentary – which is nonetheless quite interesting – is more esoteric.]

 

I am guilty of doing it more often than I’d like, behaving like everyone else, much to my chagrin. While I often think about how I could help the world be a better place as it seems to descend further and further into madness, I usually come up empty-minded, with no easy solutions and quietly wishing for a comet to strike the planet ala Don’t Look Up. Then it dawned on me as I was reading Chuck Klosterman’s book, But What if We’re Wrong? – the title of the book; what if we asked ourselves that question before being so certain of our beliefs? For example, before hitting ‘send’ on that tweet, what if we asked ourselves, “What if I’m wrong about what I’m saying?”

 

The problem with old-timey Western European philosophers is that, by-and-large, their arguments are only successful in a vacuum and suppose common people en masse can be convinced to take the time and think philosophically, and then actually apply those ideas in the real world. This doesn’t happen very often if at all, and very few people enjoy the mental masturbation of thinking deeply about anything. This is perhaps due to human beings’ motivations not being all that deep or interesting. That said, it is no wonder that ‘academics’ are regarded with suspicion by authoritarian leaders…who really don’t have that much to fear from academics being that even the general population thinks of philosophers as bullshit artists. Why would this be the case? As I said, most people just can’t be asked to think very deeply about anything. But, if this is a case of conditioning, here’s where my idea can play a critical role in how we treat each other.

 

Suppose when interacting with other people, before we speak or act we ask ourselves, “What if I’m wrong?” Think about how far this question would go in beginning thought processes that go deeper. I might add that asking this question really should be our default position since – when considering human history – we’ve been wrong about far more things than right. (This is still the case today.) The only problem is that asking the question is likely to be cut off at the knees due to an overriding self-righteousness driven by our lust for power (however minor or illusionary).

 

But let’s say in the off chance that we’re able to stop ourselves and ask, “What if I’m wrong?” what follows? If we’re trying to make factual claims, such claims are easy enough to corroborate, at least until disinformation campaigns and deep fakes become even more prevalent. If we’re stating matters of opinion, we can ask ourselves why we hold the opinions we do, what is the opposing view and why does someone hold their positions, are there any other competing views that may illuminate a false dichotomy, and perhaps most importantly what is the consequences of stating my position? Am I stating a point of view for the sake of being right? Am I just trolling? Is it for the well-being of society? (Keep in mind just about everyone thinks this.) We might also ask ourselves, No, really, what if I am wrong and I get torched for it? Having the foresight to think of possible consequences is another trait most of humanity could stand to cultivate. Trust me, in the U.S. society is a disaster because both the left- and right-wings, and corporations prefer the lot of us to act on nothing but impulse. I could be wrong about why society is a disaster, but if I am wrong I’ll own up to it. And this is something else asking ourselves, “What if I’m wrong?” aims to do – foster some goddamn humility.

 

Few people are going to disagree that we need less humility in the world. I’m not saying anyone should be a pushover instead, but rather accept the reality that none of us are right about everything – again, we’re likely to be wrong about whatever we’re on about – and be willing to accept this fact (and I’m not wrong that our propensity for wrongness is a fact). But what if I’m wrong about how much better the world would be if we asked my important question? The consequences would not be dire; people would just resume what these days is normal behavior.

 

But let’s say I’m an oil executive who insists that fossil fuels aren’t helping to change the climate, that climate change is not being driven by human activity. What if I’m wrong about that? The consequences wouldn’t be that dire for me; I guess my fortunes would keep me comfortable at least for the rest of my lifetime. For everyone else, though, well, you’re screwed and I don’t care because I’ll be fine. Ah, but do I want my name (my genes, really) to go on? And would I’d rather send my progeny into a world where climate change isn’t an issue, giving them one less thing to worry about? So, there could be dire consequences, just not immediately. And there is a myriad of questions we could raise about being wrong in this instance which could give us insight into the consequences of being wrong. But if we don’t ask ourselves if we could be wrong we’d never be capable of any meaningful thought on an issue or be able to see into the future.

 

To be fair, on the other hand, what if climate scientists are wrong about climate change, that the earth is experiencing a normal, cyclic change in overall temperature? Let’s say the belief that humans are driving climate change drives us towards more and more renewable energy sources and away from fossil fuels, what are the terrible consequences of being wrong in this case? When you consider clean air and water, this alone would be enough for me to say I would accept the consequences of being wrong even if it meant a few people who work in the fossil fuel industry would lose their jobs. [People lose their jobs all the time; they can be retrained if they’re willing. I’d be willing to lose a job I had if it meant a more beautiful, and cleaner, less-toxic environment.] So, some consequences can be quite unfavorable and others favorable if we’re wrong on an issue. But – again – we’ve got to ask the question first.

 

We’ve all seen the consequences of a world in which people act without foresight and are reactionary in the moment. Does society have to behave like this, thus becoming less civilized? Impulses may compel us but the more reason is cultivated, the more we may dull the sword of impulse. As it stands, impulse is cutting all of our relationships to ribbons. Think about the consequences of continuing this course of behavior. Is it worth it? Let’s start by asking ourselves if its wrong to act like this; what are the consequences if we change our behavior so that our interactions have more favorable results (i.e. less harm)? My guess is even if we’re wrong to temper our impulses, if we’re wrong that causing less harm is actually doing more harm, we can see that makes no sense. I’d dare say that most of us would recognize this as insanity. I’d dare say most of us would not like to see society continue in this way. So, we should stop behaving in this manner, and all we have to do is ask a simply question.

 

Practice it. Practice it and it gets easier to do. If we find that asking ourselves if we’re wrong does not lead to better outcomes, we haven’t lost much and I can go back to wishing for a comet to strike the planet. I shouldn’t want to wish for that. But maybe I’m wrong.

By Definition

[Author’s Note: Before I begin today’s scree, let me start by saying I’m not on anyone’s side. Most likely I am opposed to whatever insane, cockamamie ideas you have. Well, maybe not ALL of them, but probably most of them. For example, while I take aim at the Woke Mob today, this does not mean I am on the side of right-wing Republicans who are, by-and-large, pretty big assholes. I’m on the side of reason, thought, and interesting discourse. If you’re not on the side of these things, you, too, are probably an asshole. Only, what defines an asshole…]

 

I should have known better than to get into a Twitter spat with a Woke Mobster. Much like your average Trump cultist, there is no reasoning with them. Much like that average Trump cultist, the Woke Mob operates on pure emotion and this is why there is no reasoning with them.

 

See, I made the white man’s mistake of pointing out that a Woke Mobster’s definition of ‘racism’ was being redefined for the sake of convenience in propping up the alt-Left’s narrative, a narrative in which they intimate that only white people can be racist. The mobster in question, allegedly a doctor (a term which used to presume a certain level of intelligence along with it), went so far as to say that white people invented racism. Of course, they couldn’t say where or when this happened probably because this alleged fact was in fact not a fact.

 

Now I’m not going to sit here like your average Trump cultist and tell you systematic racism hasn’t existed in the U.S. since its inception. Yes, some groups of white people in the U.S. have been guilty of oppressing people of color for two-plus centuries. Naturally, while the Woke Mob recognizes this, they neglect to notice that other groups of white people have been instrumental in advancing rights for people of color. To be sure, more effort is needed to make people of color truly equal in the U.S. among the predominately ‘white culture.’ The problem is, in the Woke Mob’s narrative, because of the oppression people of color have suffered, all white people and all their institutions are oppressors and it cannot be the case that white people cannot be racist. It is understandable that unfair treatment might result in this kind of mindset, but this is unreasonable thinking nonetheless. To actually point this unreasonableness, though, is only more proof of the white man’s racism. But what is racism?

 

As philosophers do, we should agree on our definitions before proceeding. Per Merriam-Webster’s definition* which has been the definition of racism for, I don’t know, a while now, “1-Unfair treatment of people of a particular race in a society to the benefit of people of another race (and) 2-The belief that certain races of people are superior to others.” This as opposed to a Woke Mobster’s definition which in not so unsimilar and goes something like this, “The systematic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of [white people].” The latter of these two definitions is the only one that will suffice for the Woke Mob since it excludes any group besides white people from being racist. This has to be the case because, as everyone knows, all other races around the globe treat each other with nothing but dignity and respect. Nevermind the hatred between the Chinese and Japanese. Nevermind Africa being the epicenter of genocides in the modern age. There’s nothing to see here.

 

[*I was challenged on this, my opponent asking me if I was going by Webster’s definition. Well, yes, I was. However, because Merriam-Webster was compiled by white men one assumes, the definition is not to be trusted, obviously.]

 

And so because I, as the white man in the conversation, was wrong by virtue of my existence. For this to be the case – forgive my poor white man’s ignorance – seems kinda racist, at least according to Merriam-Webster. Ah, but since white people hold most of the power in the U.S. I can’t be oppressed on an individual, much less societal, level. That’s the way the Left’s narrative goes, so it seems.

 

What would be interesting is to peer into the future and see the U.S. being headed by people of color – that day is coming – and see whether the Woke Mob’s current definition of racism holds. According to the logic, it shouldn’t if people of color wield most of the power in the country. In fact, according to the logic, it would only be people of color who could be racist then. But, you just can’t expect people who operate solely on emotion to conduct these kinds of thought experiments much less come to that conclusion.

 

It should not be forgotten that racism is an act, not an objective object that exists when no one is around. As such, anyone or any group can be racist, unless you change the definition to suit your narrative as the Woke Mob has done. Unfortunately, words are fluid in definition (and even spelling and pronunciation). Case in point, the word ‘literally’ literally no longer means ‘literally’ when used by lay people, and this is very sad. The same could be said of the word ‘theory’ when used by a scientist as opposed to the common citizen who doesn’t understand anything about science. But I digress; it is a time-honored tradition of Sophists to change definitions to win arguments. There’s not much that can be done about that unless we all start talking mathematics.

 

It should also not be forgotten that it was the philosophy of (mostly) old-timey European white men that argued for the equal treatment of all people. (To be fair, by ‘all people’ they were largely referring to ‘people’ who were only ‘people’ because they had dicks. It’s a matter of definition that was convenient for men at the time.) If not for those philosophers, the Woke Mob would not even be in a position to voice their displeasure about their systematic oppression. No other philosophers from any other continent or culture argued so fiercely for equal rights. I’M NOT SAYING people of color should be undyingly thankful to those philosophers but history is what it is. And, yes, I know that as a white man that’s easy for me to say.

 

Now, before any of this goes any further or before I get cancelled, let us argue over the definition of ‘definition.’ I’ll pour us some whiskey. Or is it ‘whisky’? Fuck.